Well I guess the Rumors are True(Traditional Mass Back)

[KathleenElsie]

I wondered how long till the thread digressed. Here is praying that we can all work out our differences and still have a valid Catholic Mass.

 

[St_Isidore]

Are you saying the Sacrifice doesn’t take place then in NO Mass?

I would imagine that is what this member has suggested. I concur, since [edtied by Moderator] has approved receiving communion at a mass WITHOUT ANY WORDS OF CONSECRATION (Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 232, only reinforces the fact that with [edtied by Moderator] and in the Modernist Novus Ordo Sect Mass, the eucharist is not effected.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Though they pray for it, the Modernist sect and their allies shall never prevail. That is why the TLM is still extant, and continues to grow. Whilst the Modernists numbers drop consistently.
The only thing consistent about the Modernist Novus Ordo Sect is that they are Inconsistent. (i.e. consistently inconsistent).

Sect?

How sad. This is exactly the kind of rant that gives “traditionalism” a bad name here and is one of the reasons that unfortunately causes real traditionalists to be broadbrushed with, or lumped with schismatics. Encouraging destructive factionalism and division in the Church is an even more pernicious error than modernism itself.

 

[KathleenElsie]

St Isidore

Your reference to the Pope is very disrespectful. Please refrain from sun in the name of Charity to others.

 

[KathleenElsie]

The vernacular Mass will still exist, but I can see a greater use of Latin (both as the primary language of the liturgy, and for the common prayers of the vernacular liturgy)

That would be more closely in line with the Vatican II documents

 

[St_Isidore]

Sect?

How sad. This is exactly the kind of rant that gives “traditionalism” a bad name here and is one of the reasons that unfortunately causes real traditionalists to be broadbrushed with, or lumped with schismatics. Encouraging destructive factionalism and division in the Church is an even more pernicious error than modernism itself.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. This is just the exact misinterpretation of words that I have mentioned. The term ‘sect’ is used here in the sense of Religious Denomination (please review the dictionary). I hope that clarifies your err. In addition, why is that The Novus Ordo Modernist can call names to Other Catholics such as sects, schism, etc. When those Catholic groups use the same categorization towards the modernists, then it becomes sad or unfortunate. Are the groups of Catholics who you would call schismatic, allowed to label the Novus Ordo Schismatic?

 

[St_Isidore]

I wondered how long till the thread digressed. Here is praying that we can all work out our differences and still have a valid Catholic Mass.

The TLM Never left. You are most welcome to comment on what ACHAIA has written. Sorry about using the short form of Benedict XVI I will endeavor to use the full title in future.

 

[MTD]

Whilst No. 58 of the Pope’s encyclical Mediator Dei does make it clear, Nos 187 and 188 and 190 emphasies the need for all to strive in obedience and to adhere to the laws.

Please remember that Mediator Dei was addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops and other ordinaries in peace and communion with the Apostolic See, so the you at the beginning of no. 187 cannot really be said to be addressed to popes.

In perpetuity means forever

Assuredly. But please explain to me how St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII justified themselves in revising the rite promulgated in perpetuity by St. Pius V.

The Priest is no priest at all since Vatican II have removed all the prayers necessary to grant our newly ordained priests the POWERS to offer the Holy Sacrifice.

In virtue of disciplinary infallibility, a pope cannot make disciplinary actions contrary to Divine Law. To promulgate an invalid rite is thus impossible for a valid pope to do. If you believe in the validity of the pope who promulgated the current Roman Rite of Ordination, you must believe in the validity of the rite. To do otherwise is to deny disciplinary infallibility.

How is it that in the New Liturgy, we no longer have an altar (to offer a Sacrifice) but a table where “all are called to sup” so to speak.

What defines an altar? From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “In the New Law the altar is the table on which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered.” Disclaimer: I personally strongly prefer the traditional altar.

How is it that our Holy Tabernacles have been pushed to a “convenient” place in the churches and instead we have (like in our Cathedral) a humongous cement chair that has taken central position.

The tabernacle at my church is in the traditional location; I can’t answer for those whose tabernacles are at the side or hidden in some corner.

There is no mention of a Sacrifice in the New Mass at all.

Do you really believe that? I was just at a NO Mass today, and I clearly heard the word sacrifice both in the Preface (if I remember correctly) and in the Canon!

Are we Catholic? Have we become so brainwashed, that we see no error?

Yes, I’m Catholic, thanks to a beautiful Dominican parish and my wonderful parents.

In my parish, we have all sorts of weird happenings since the changes took effect and it is getting worse. For Chinese New Year, the Archbishop allows the pagan Chinese celebrations in the Cathedral - they enter the church performing their Lion Dance and all the rest of it. When it comes to Interfaith Worship - all non-christian denominations are up at the altar reciting their own sacred books - the Hindus, the Muslims, Bahais , you name it. The Archbishop here shamefully encourages Catholic teachers to seek dialogue with Hindus and Muslims - go into their temples and learn about who they are!!!

I’m sorry to hear about your parish and diocese.

Are we suppose to sit back and wonder and just let things be as they are or are we supposed to seek the truth and PRAY for God’s mercy that we are not being MISLED into thinking that we are still the same Church.

No, we’re not to just sit back, and that’s what these forums are all about. I can tell you three things we need to do: learn and spread the truth, pray, and do penance.

I am totally convinced that the Traditional Latin Masses are still in existence today for the sole reason that Jesus Christ willed it to be.

Nothing would be in existence if it weren’t for His will.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is to be found ONLY in the Traditional Latin Masses alone

So the Eastern rites are invalid??? St. Pius V wouldn’t support you in that; just check the section in his Quo Primum in which he says that all rites over 200 years in existence at the time of the promulgation of the Tridentine are allowed to be continued.

Please be notified that The Indult Masses that are said in Latin are merely the New Mass translation into Latin word for word.

The Indult Masses are according the 1962 revision of the Tridentine; that Missal is not the same as the NO Mass.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Do we realise that Vatican II teachings indicate that salvation is now gained through any other religions be it false christian religions or non-Christian relgions, pagan or what-have-yous as long as there is some good in that religion?

No, any non-Catholic who is saved is not saved because of his affiliation to another religion but because he did not know the Catholic religion was the true religion but still cooperated with the graces God chose to give him. Any graces received by such a person and the subsequent salvation come through the Church and not through any other religion.

Do we realise that it is no longer necessary to win souls over to the true Catholic faith?

No, we must win souls to the Catholic Faith because for one, without membership in the Church it is very difficult to cooperate with the graces God gives and to retain sanctifying grace given through Baptism (in the case of the Protestants) and for two, because God may choose not to grant those graces to such a person because it is by nature out of the normal way in which He has ordained that we receive grace (namely, through the sacraments).

Therefore, be wary, it is the very people we persecute and excommunicate (the traditionalists) who have “returned to the catacombs” in order to hide from their arch enemies and celebrate the Holy Sacrifice that is most pleasing to God .

Who is persecuting traditionalists? Not me!

Maria

 

[MTD]

I agree since the words of the consecration are altered the sacrifice is null and void. But even the Modernist Novus Ordo sect knows that the consecration occors in the TLM. It is the NO that is invalidated.

Would you mind clarifying how the formula of consecration in the NO was changed in such a way that the consecration is invalid?

Maria

 

[Uxor]

The Indult Masses are according the 1962 revision of the Tridentine; that Missal is not the same as the NO Mass.

Maria

That is true.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How was it ever possible that Vatican II invited Protestant Ministers (remember they are descendants of Martin Luther who hated our Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - the reason why Luther was excommunicated). to be involved in the reforms of our Liturgical worship?

"On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”

This site might be a helpful read:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

 

[St_Isidore]

I’m sorry to hear about your parish and diocese.

Yes It is a shame that so many parishes of the Novus Ordo are allowing pagan worship to occur.

The Indult Masses are according the 1962 revision of the Tridentine; that Missal is not the same as the NO Mass.

Maria

Excellent point, they are definitely not the same. I am glad we agree.

 

[St_Isidore]

I thought that was clear from my intro. English speaking countries would be returning to “for many,” by order of the Holy See, but that that did not render invalid those masses that had been confected using “for all” (according to that same competent authority). I only wrote the bit covering validity because I’d already stipulated that we were going back to “for many.”

But if you actually read what you have written you can visualize the ambiguity. For example if a Mass using ‘ALL’ is valid, then what is the need to revert back to the authentic words of Christ ‘MANY’ in the printing of the new missals?
If it is correct as it stands then why change it? The only logical deduction is that it is for the better, for the better we return to the true words of Christ.
Your post should have included point #4 in that way you can see what the document is truly saying.

 

[St_Isidore]

No, any non-Catholic who is saved is not saved because of his affiliation to another religion but because he did not know the Catholic religion was the true religion but still cooperated with the graces God chose to give him. Any graces received by such a person and the subsequent salvation come through the Church and not through any other religion.

But this is not what Benedict XVI is saying on frequent basis. For example you are contradicting him:

In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states: “…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the
Bible is a possible one…”( vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popoloebraico_
en.html)

Is Benedict XVI saying we should believe that denial of Christ is possible?

No, we must win souls to the Catholic Faith because for one, without membership in the Church it is very difficult to cooperate with the graces God gives and to retain sanctifying grace given through Baptism (in the case of the Protestants) and for two, because God may choose not to grant those graces to such a person because it is by nature out of the normal way in which He has ordained that we receive grace (namely, through the sacraments).

The following does not look like Benedict XVI is trying to win souls to the Catholic Faith:

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts… There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”(Benedict XVI, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.)

This sounds like a denial of the Christian Faith to me.

I believe this:
1 John 2:22 – “… he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”

 

[rlg94086]

Of course denial of Christ is possible…for non-Christians.

The Pope is just explaining the simple understanding that other people (the Jews) are looking at the same evidence and coming up with a different conclusion. Their reasoning for coming to that conclusion is a valid one, even if we believe it is an incorrect conclusion.

You are sounding like my “born again” brother-in-law. When I explained to him that Jews don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, he said, “What? It’s in the Bible!” :whacky:

BTW…what does any of that have to do with the universal indult for the St Pius V Mass? Do you think the Jews would have been celebrating the TLM, but some of our Bishops have been holding them back?

But this is not what Benedict XVI is saying on frequent basis. For example you are contradicting him:

In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states: “…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the
Bible is a possible one…”( vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popoloebraico_
en.html)

Is Benedict XVI saying we should believe that denial of Christ is possible?

The following does not look like Benedict XVI is trying to win souls to the Catholic Faith:

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts… There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”(Benedict XVI, God and the World, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.)

This sounds like a denial of the Christian Faith to me.

I believe this:
1 John 2:22 – “… he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But if you actually read what you have written you can visualize the ambiguity. For example if a Mass using ‘ALL’ is valid, then what is the need to revert back to the authentic words of Christ ‘MANY’ in the printing of the new missals?
If it is correct as it stands then why change it? The only logical deduction is that it is for the better, for the better we return to the true words of Christ.
Your post should have included point #4 in that way you can see what the document is truly saying.

We’re going back to a more accurate translation of the *Latin. *What is essential to the consecration is “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”

As for what I should have included, as I already said, I stipulated to the fact that we were going back to “for many.” I was answering the charge that “for all” had rendered the Mass invalid. It had not, according to the Holy See. See MTD’s remarks, re: disciplinary infallibility.

 

[St_Isidore]

Originally Posted by St Isidore View Post
But if you actually read what you have written you can visualize the ambiguity. For example if a Mass using ‘ALL’ is valid, then what is the need to revert back to the authentic words of Christ ‘MANY’ in the printing of the new missals?
If it is correct as it stands then why change it? The only logical deduction is that it is for the better, for the better we return to the true words of Christ.
Your post should have included point #4 in that way you can see what the document is truly saying.]

We’re going back to a more accurate translation of the *Latin. *What is essential to the consecration is “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”

You are playing on words. You cannot choose what is essential. This is a partial consecration (which of course is null and void). By your definition that is all we need for the consecration. It must be in totality in order to effect the sacrament. ( I am not sure I understand you implication here, please correct me if I am wrong: Are you saying that what is essential is less than what Christ said in scripture (i.e. …which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins…)?

As for what I should have included, as I already said, I stipulated to the fact that we were going back to “for many.” I was answering the charge that “for all” had rendered the Mass invalid. It had not, according to the Holy See. See MTD’s remarks, re: disciplinary infallibility.

All to ‘Many’: more accurate = more correct. This is true unless more accurate is less correct? Is that your suggestion? Again this is confusing, the Latin translation was ‘more accurate’ before then became ‘less accurate (Novu Ordo)’, and now is ‘more accurate again’.

 

[BobP123]

The vernacular Mass will still exist, but I can see a greater use of Latin (both as the primary language of the liturgy, and for the common prayers of the vernacular liturgy)

That would be more closely in line with the Vatican II documents

Just give us the motu proprio in Latin before the French bishops get a hold of it and we’ll take it from there.

 

[BobP123]

But if you actually read what you have written you can visualize the ambiguity. For example if a Mass using ‘ALL’ is valid, then what is the need to revert back to the authentic words of Christ ‘MANY’ in the printing of the new missals?
If it is correct as it stands then why change it? The only logical deduction is that it is for the better, for the better we return to the true words of Christ.
Your post should have included point #4 in that way you can see what the document is truly saying.

Good point. Either one way or the other. Christ didn’t double-speak.